Golden Gate officials approve financing plan including sidewalk access toll (San Francisco: rental, buying)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

It's a piece of public infrastructure that also happens to be an attraction as well, just as there are others out there like it. SF is deciding to start charging pedestrians and cyclists to use it, that is how SF is very unique in that regard. Nothing you listed would fall under public infrastructure btw. Also the fact that this toll would go to help paying for things not even directly related to the maintenance and costs of the bridge makes it an even more ridiculous "admission fee". If you want to try to spin it and pretend the GGB is Disneyland or the Space Needle go right ahead but I highly disagree.

We agree it is regrettable that there will now be a charge for the pleasure of enjoying the bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists.

We disagree that there is anything unique about San Francisco charging a fee.

We also disagree that the bridge walkway / bikeway is practical, commuting infrastructure. It's not. It is a viewpoint deck attached to vehicular infrastructure. I'm pretty sure no one walks to work everyday across the GG bridge. I kinda doubt anyone cycles across as a commuter either but there may be a few folks who do.

From a pedestrian and bicyclists point of view, the GG Bridge is very much like the Space Needle, St. Louis Arch, Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty. It is a scenic attraction. Not infrastructure.

But, even if it were infrastructure for those purposes, lots of public infrastructures have tolls and fees for use. Roads. Bridges. Express lanes.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

We agree it is regrettable that there will now be a charge for the pleasure of enjoying the bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists.

We disagree that there is anything unique about San Francisco charging a fee.

We also disagree that the bridge walkway / bikeway is practical, commuting infrastructure. It's not. It is a viewpoint deck attached to vehicular infrastructure. I'm pretty sure no one walks to work everyday across the GG bridge. I kinda doubt anyone cycles across as a commuter either but there may be a few folks who do.

From a pedestrian and bicyclists point of view, the GG Bridge is very much like the Space Needle, St. Louis Arch, Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty. It is a scenic attraction. Not infrastructure.

But, even if it were infrastructure for those purposes, lots of public infrastructures have tolls and fees for use. Roads. Bridges. Express lanes.

You haven't provided one example of a piece of public infrastructure like the GGB Bridge charging tolls for pedestrians or cyclists, so it's clearly fairly unique and not done anywhere else. If you want to pretend the GGB is like Disneyland, yes I suppose it's not unique though.

In the sense that the GGB wasn't built for the purpose of being an attraction it's not very much not like the Space Needle, St Louis Arch, Statue of Liberty, at all. And unless the Space Needle, St Louis Arch, Empire State Building, etc..are subsidizing local transit services directly with their "admission fees" then it's really not a good comparison in that sense either.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

You haven't provided one example of a piece of public infrastructure like the GGB Bridge charging tolls for pedestrians or cyclists, so it's clearly fairly unique and not done anywhere else. If you want to pretend the GGB is like Disneyland, yes I suppose it's not unique though.

In the sense that the GGB wasn't built for the purpose of being an attraction it's not very much not like the Space Needle, St Louis Arch, Statue of Liberty, at all. And unless the Space Needle, St Louis Arch, Empire State Building, etc..are subsidizing local transit services directly with their "admission fees" then it's really not a good comparison in that sense either.

This is getting hilarious. I haven't compared to Disneyland or anything similar. And you apparently feel driven to continue ignoring that the bridge isn't infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. And never was or so intended.

It doesn't matter that it wasn't built for the purpose of being an attraction. That is what it has become. You know, like the Hoover Dam, which dam sure wasn't built as an attraction. But which dam sure has become one and charges admission to visit, even as it continues to function as infrastructure. And yeah, you walk through the dam. Can you bicycle through Hoover? I dunno!

Your argument is ridiculously specious. Public entities charge for anything they feel they can make a buck for all across the country and around the world. This unfortunate reality isn't in the slightest unique to SF Or California. Why do you and so many others feel the need to believe SF and the whole state is uniquely evil to the core?

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I'm pretty sure no one walks to work everyday across the GG bridge. I kinda doubt anyone cycles across as a commuter either but there may be a few folks who do.

I agree. I'm not sure there's pedestrian or cycling access through the Waldo tunnel. You'd have to go around using Alexander. Like you said, maybe a few cyclists but that's quite a hike. I wonder if they'll let them use a Fastrack pass. LOL

[3rdGen SFan]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

This is getting hilarious. I haven't compared to Disneyland or anything similar. And you apparently feel driven to continue ignoring that the bridge isn't infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. And never was or so intended.

It doesn't matter that it wasn't built for the purpose of being an attraction. That is what it has become. You know, like the Hoover Dam, which dam sure wasn't built as an attraction. But which dam sure has become one and charges admission to visit, even as it continues to function as infrastructure. And yeah, you walk through the dam. Can you bicycle through Hoover? I dunno!

Your argument is ridiculously specious. Public entities charge for anything they feel they can make a buck for all across the country and around the world. This unfortunate reality isn't in the slightest unique to SF Or California. Why do you and so many others feel the need to believe SF and the whole state is uniquely evil to the core?

Exactly... People move here and want to make SF as crappy as where they came from. Then after they get their fill of SF, they'll get fed up with how non-unique & ruined they and other nomadic transplants like themselves make SF, then once again move on to somewhere else to ruin while leaving their trail of stench like wolverines.

[LexusNexus]

I can think of a thousand other things that are of greater concern. I thought a "study" was underway to determine if a fee was going to be charged. I had no idea that it would be approved within a week after I heard about it.

This wouldn't stop me from enjoying the bridge or the area.

[Stoke]

Ridiculous. Next start charging people for using sidewalks.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

This is getting hilarious. I haven't compared to Disneyland or anything similar. And you apparently feel driven to continue ignoring that the bridge isn't infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. And never was or so intended.

It doesn't matter that it wasn't built for the purpose of being an attraction. That is what it has become. You know, like the Hoover Dam, which dam sure wasn't built as an attraction. But which dam sure has become one and charges admission to visit, even as it continues to function as infrastructure. And yeah, you walk through the dam. Can you bicycle through Hoover? I dunno!

Your argument is ridiculously specious. Public entities charge for anything they feel they can make a buck for all across the country and around the world. This unfortunate reality isn't in the slightest unique to SF Or California. Why do you and so many others feel the need to believe SF and the whole state is uniquely evil to the core?

You've compared it to tourist attractions, that were built as such, and that charge admission and always have. The bridge is infrastructure of cyclists and pedestrians, if it was never intended to be so then sidewalks would have never been built like they aren't on a lot of bridges, including most here in the Bay Area.

Well if the GGB wants to take people to the top of the towers and charge them admission then that's fine and totally makes sense just as you get charged admission to get a tour of Hoover Dam. But you don't get charged to walk or bike across it just as you don't for the Brooklyn Bridge either or the Oakland span of the Bay Bridge or the Sydney Harbor Bridge.

Well then name another piece of public infrastructure, particularly a bridge if you can, that charges pedestrians and cyclists to cross it. Things like the Space Needle, St Louis Arch, Empire State Building, etc..aren't public infrastructure and it's a ridiculous argument to pretend the GGB is the same thing just so you can pretend that this is somehow normal.

[JGC97]

Anyone know just how much money this "toll" would generate for the city? I know a lot of tourists use the bridge sidewalk but will this fee really make a dent in the deficit over the next five years? Upkeep on the bridge is pricey.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

You've compared it to tourist attractions, that were built as such, and that charge admission and always have. The bridge is infrastructure of cyclists and pedestrians, if it was never intended to be so then sidewalks would have never been built like they aren't on a lot of bridges, including most here in the Bay Area.

Well if the GGB wants to take people to the top of the towers and charge them admission then that's fine and totally makes sense just as you get charged admission to get a tour of Hoover Dam. But you don't get charged to walk or bike across it just as you don't for the Brooklyn Bridge either or the Oakland span of the Bay Bridge or the Sydney Harbor Bridge.

Well then name another piece of public infrastructure, particularly a bridge if you can, that charges pedestrians and cyclists to cross it. Things like the Space Needle, St Louis Arch, Empire State Building, etc..aren't public infrastructure and it's a ridiculous argument to pretend the GGB is the same thing just so you can pretend that this is somehow normal.

The bridge is definitely NOT infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. Never has been.
The Hoover dam was NOT built as a tourist attraction.
Neither was the Gettysburg battlefield.
Or uncountable other places / things that came to inspire wonder and awe.
In fact, the Statue of Liberty and the arch were built as monuments, not specifically to attract tourism, as well.

Things change. The first subway tunnel in NYC was only used two years. Pure infrastructure. No tourism. It fell into disuse and was abandoned and forgotten until recently. Voila! Guess what? It has been now reopened as a tourist attraction - where people are charged a fee to visit. Whaddayaknows.

Pedestrians can walk up to the bridge-end viewpoints for free. Like other attractions. They now just can't cross the "viewing deck" itself without paying a fee. Like at other attractions.

You know, seriously, trying to make this unique by specifying the feature's details as somehow being a classifier of universal note is - well, ridiculous. The foundation for the issue is that this fee does NOT interfere with or change any public commute. It is a tourist fee for access to the viewing deck of a world famous attraction. And there is nothing unique about that.